This film has always intrigued me. I am drawn to it like a moth to a flame. It is quite intoxicating in a very strange way.

Its origins are from a book by the acclaimed science fiction author, Robert Heinlein, but, after seeing the film, you might think it came from a comic book or graphic novel.

Paul Verhoeven, best known as director of “Basic Instinct” is at the helm for this roller coaster of a movie

It is at the confluence of several film genres. Is it a war movie? Very much so. Plenty of bug zapping action and camaraderie amongst the ranks. It could actually be a cowboy movie if you substitute hostile injuns for the arachnids. Is it a horror movie? Well, yes. The arachnids are pretty darn terrifying and the liberal sightings of gore and body parts tell of horrific deaths. Is it a science fiction movie? Yes. But only because it is set in the future. Not 1984 more Beverley Hills 90210. The CGI effects are pretty special and create a wonderful, exciting and dangerous world inhabited by the cast.

But, more than anything, it is a teen movie with all the angst and clichés of young people and their relationships. There are coming of age themes involved but Verhoeven concentrates on the beautiful young things and their sexual awareness. It wouldn’t be Paul Verhoeven film without the titillation of lingering shots of naked breasts.

A teen movie wrapped up in a war/ horror/cowboy cloak with a clanking political message about totalitarianism or fascism. All in the style of a comic book or cartoon. Weird. Yet it somehow works. The story trots along at a cracking pace with action sequences at just the right points in the film. Whilst there is only a little empathy with the main characters it is enough to keep you hooked until the next stunning action sequence. The camerawork and photography is stunningly garish. The acting is enthusiastic rather than exemplary.

The politics are interesting in that the world has clearly evolved as a totalitarian state with the government outwardly focussing on the bug threat and ruthlessly suppressing any dissent. Citizens follow the will of the state. Propaganda is used as a device to ram home the message. Not entirely convincing and none too subtle but it gives you a feel of the oppressive environment these young people are being brought up in.

The bugs are the main feature though. Their sharp edges and stabbing pincers are used to great effect in dispatching many fleshy and vulnerable humans. They swarm and are killing machines and take a lot of teamwork and rounds of ammo to take out. The brain bug sort of takes away some of the menace even though it can suck the brains out of your head. Marvellous creations.

Still we are suspending disbelief throughout the film and apart from some continuity and medical issues towards the end of the film. (Why does Carmen lose sooo much blood and yet at the end is smiling and up with the rest of them in the triumphant finale of the capture of the brain bug). Maybe it’s because we aren’t meant to take it too seriously and that it really is meant to be a live action cartoon.

It has proved so popular that it has spawned a franchise of sorts. The second film - Starship Troopers 2 - is a bit of a let down with its downbeat feel and less of the teen movie.  However, the third - Starship Troopers 3 - Marrauder -  goes more for the feel of the original and back to some of its themes. It shows how the original teen hero - Rico - has grown up during the bug wars and more of the politics of the totalitarian state. Whilst not wholly successful it is more of a return to form with the original screenplay writer now at the helm and Paul Verhoeven producing for a change.

Starship Troopers is  a high octane romp for the teen generation with references for older audiences as well. And strangely hypnotic. Possibly, because it panders to our more base instincts (geddit) and prejudices. What odds on Starship Troopers 4?

Every so often I see a film on TV that I remember from long ago that surprises me. Southern Comfort is one such film that I feel is a hidden gem. Not only has it got much to offer cinematically speaking but it has balls and attitude.

Southern Comfort is a film that follows the (ultimately tragic) exploits of a troop of National Guardsmen on a training exercise in the swamps of Lousianna as they upset some local Cajun hunters and pay a shockingly high price for their misdemeanours.

The troop is a standard mix of rednecks, loners and bureaucrats who are better at warring with themselves than the enemy. There are no big stars just an ensemble of excellent character actors - Keith Carradine, Fred Ward and Powers Boothe most notably - who carry the story forward in a believable fashion. Tension abounds from the beginning as the disparate troop argues and fights within itself. A tragic encounter with some local Cajun hunters leaves them fighting for their lives as they become the prey.

The tone is set from the start as the beautifully evocative slide guitar soundtrack by Ry Cooder creates a mood of foreboding and alienation, something tragic is coming our way. (He does something similar in Paris, Texas). This complements the stunning cinematography of the swamps creating an oppressively claustrophobic stage for the action to be played out. Its timeless and directionless and alien to the city boys in the troop. All the troop wants to do is get outta there but which way?

The director is Walter Hill, a director most famous at this point for his controversially violent film The Warriors which traces the attempts of an urban gang to get back to their own turf across town. During the film they have to cross other gangs’ turf and survive to reach their goal. One could argue that Southern Comfort is a grown up riff on that story with the troop entering (and messing with) Cajun territory. Certainly the violence meted out is quite graphic and resonant with the Warriors. But there are more levels to the film than that. It can be seen as a post Vietnam analysis of the USA, a country with lots of divisions and arguments and opinions and attitudes struggling to come to terms with resolving conflict. It could be seen as an allegory of Vietnam itself with an arrogant army going into an alien landscape and coming up against a very different culture and getting a very bloody nose.

The ending is not surprising in what happens but the way that it happens. The two remaining survivors of the troop eventually come across a Cajun village. Up until now the Cajuns have been represented by the partially seen hunters. Now we see the Cajun everyday life of the village and the hospitality afforded to the troopers. Nevertheless the troopers are wary discovering that the hunters have returned to the village to finish them off. So after a game of cat and mouse they fight and kill the hunters and hobble off down the road out of the village until they meet an army vehicle.

The peculiar thing for me about this ending is that the film seems to be saying that Cajuns are not all bloodthirsty killers by portraying the village life and the obvious enjoyment. It could also be saying that the Cajun everyday life is a warm and cuddly myth because when the fight for survival in the village begins everything carries on as if nothing is happening! No one seems to be perturbed about shots being fired and the troopers obviously sustaining knife wounds. What does that say about the local populace? Mixed messages I think and puzzling to me any way.

Nevertheless, in the final analysis it is a gripping action thriller with overtones of so much more and whilst not getting into the great film category Southern Comfort has much to commend it.

I know I’ve already done a post about Continuity and Montage editing some time ago but I’ve had some more thoughts recently that help explain and develop the idea of Montage. As you will know from my previous post, the idea of montage is to put seemingly unrelated pictures or scenes together that leaves the viewer to make sense of the order and sequence of the film and attach meaning to it.

I had trouble coming up with examples in films although I am sure there are many splendid ones over the years. However, after a long period of reflection (too long), it dawned on me that we see montage in action every day. Think of adverts on TV. Think of film trailers. Time is precious in these media so traditional continuity editing cannot get the job done here. So what they use is a very fast and compact montage technique to get a message across or a set of values. The viewer’s brain is an active participant in this process.

In fact the development of montage in the area of advertising is very sophisticated. It uses the latest insights in psychology both individual and social and taps into various concerns that we have. It is actually very powerful and in many ways works at the sub conscious level. We can make sense of images quicker and better than text or audio so the old adage “a picture is worth a thousand words” is undeniably true. If certain pictures evoke a certain response in people then it follows that certain sequences of pictures can also evoke predictable responses in the viewer.

What is interesting in some film trailers nowadays, particularly thrillers, is that the montage of scenes is put together to deliberately wrong foot the viewer and keep them guessing. Some film trailers are actually better than the film they are promoting because the montage allows your brain to create its own imaginary film before you see it. Very clever stuff. A little bit worrying if you are worried about brain washing and mind control and that sort of thing.

But the real beauty of montage in films is that every viewer can potentially have a slightly different understanding of the film. It engages the viewer’s brain and from an artist’s point of view that must be a good thing. In genre, say a western, you know what the rules are and when they are being broken. In montage there are no hard and fast rules; it is inherently more creative. As a film maker you have to experiment with images and sequences until you hit upon the right combination to evoke the response or feeling that you are looking for. Not only that but the great film makers can come up with new ways of getting their message across merely by using a unique series of images in a unique sequence. By the same token viewers can be confused by poorly structured montage sequences.

Maybe that is why there are so many film directors currently working who cut their teeth on adverts and commercials. We have seen many thirty second films in the advert break between the real films. Just watch them and maybe analyse them. They tell a story and they have a message. And the images are laden with meaning and action. And the sequence will have a beginning, a middle and an end. And they can be wildly creative. Maybe this is the real home of montage although it still does have a place in films.

It is always interesting to watch the films of a director who marches to the beat of a different drum. Terrence Malick is one of those directors whose films captivate and sometimes infuriate the film critics. His latest film - The New World - seems to have divided critics and been less than enthusiastically received by the viewing public. Not that that is really going to dent his kudos or make him re-evaluate his work. His take on the life of the pilgrim fathers as they struggled to form a community in the New World and their impact on the native Americans is a work of art and a stimulus for the brain.

I watched The New World the other night on TV and found it spookily like his previous film The Thin Red Line in many ways. Stylistically, there are many similarities. The mobile camera work, the beautiful photography of the natural world, the long takes, the sometimes-fractured continuity, the occasional character voice over of innermost thoughts, the sun-and-sky-through-the trees visual motif that almost acts as punctuation for the film’s narrative.

I found the film quite engaging albeit very long. The narrative is told through the probably mythical love affair between Captain John Smith and Pocahontas and is more like an epic poem than a narrative-driven piece. Smith is portrayed by Colin Farrell as an non-conformist outcast who escapes death at the hangman’s noose and the native tomahawk and who becomes more at ease with the native way of life than the European settlers’ grim existence at Jamestown. Pocahontas, played by newcomer Q’orianka Kilcher is the young and enchanting native princess who falls in love with him. Both experience major changes and dilemmas that bring them together and then force them apart. The film’s actions revolve around their central relationship for the most part until Smith is called back by the king to explore for a North West passage.

While the film is woven around the facts about the precarious co-existence of the settlers and the natives there are big themes being explored here. Is the industrial European culture any better than the indigenous aboriginal culture? Clearly, Malick doesn’t think so as he portrays the settlers as unwanted intruders into a kind of Garden of Eden. The beautiful shots of the natives fishing and in their daily lives, seemingly at one with the natural world, contrast vividly with the settlers grim, muddy and argumentative existence inside walls of their own making in the early part of the film. But whose world will prevail? The natives help the intruders survive their first harsh winter through gifts of food thinking that they will leave within the year. When it is clear they are staying the natives adopt a different stance and attitude and bloody battles erupt. The natives fear they will be overrun by the newcomers. It is a statement about imperialism and colonisation.

The love affair between Smith and Pocahontas is shown in long tracking shots of them walking through meadows and playfully getting to know each other through touch and other senses. No unnecessary sexual scenes here. Just the hint, the mood, the nuances created by the length of time they are shown together. Later, as difficulties beset the relationship the distance between them widens and the colours drain. Beautiful mood creation.

As Pocahontas is ostracised by her people she is taken in by well meaning settlers who show her their ways. Eventually she travels to Europe and we see her start to appreciate the beauty and culture of England and understand it and be at peace with it. Malick shows us that the formal beauty of an English country garden can be just as ravishing as the wild forest, streams and meadows of the new world. This was Pocahontas’s new world. On her death at the end of the film Pocahontas is citizen of two worlds accepting the differences and seeing beauty in each.

In some ways, The New World is a search for beauty both visually, emotionally and intellectually and the triumph of beauty over mere squalid existence. The film flows gently and rhythmically like a stream (apart from the odd violent episode) and does not conform to a typical Hollywood format where all things are resolved in the ending, all loose ends tied up neatly and the audience go home satisfied. It leaves you thinking. It leaves you with a sense of the changing moods and perspectives of the time. It leaves you with some powerful visual images of outstanding beauty and wonderment. More a cinematic poem than an historical film. It is probably a film that will mature slowly and may even provide a better Director’s Cut than most.

£14.78 End Date: Monday Aug-03-2009 20:41:08 BST Buy It Now for only: £14.78 Buy it now | Add to watch list

£10.60 End Date: Sunday Aug-02-2009 1:55:04 BST Buy It Now for only: £10.60 Buy it now | Add to watch list

£43.81 End Date: Friday Jul-31-2009 22:05:45 BST Buy It Now for only: £43.81 Buy it now | Add to watch list

£28.28 End Date: Friday Jul-31-2009 18:06:28 BST Buy It Now for only: £28.28 Buy it now | Add to watch list

£9.66 End Date: Friday Jul-31-2009 16:34:06 BST Buy It Now for only: £9.66 Buy it now | Add to watch list

The other night I treated myself to a double helping of Werner Herzog cinema. BBC3 was having a Herzog night and showed Fitzcarraldo and Aguirre, Wrath of God one after the other! And then a documentary to bring us up to date with his more recent activities.

Why am I raving on like a lunatic about this non Hollywood, German film director whose most famous films are so idiosyncratic and away from the mainstream? Not because these two films generally crop up in most film critics top 20 films of all time. Not because both films contain the acting talents of Klaus Kinski, one of the most charismatic and spell binding (not to say unpredictable) presences on celluloid. No, you just have to watch the films to find out how special they are.

 I had seen Aguirre, Wrath of God, many years ago and it left an indelible impression on me. I just had to see it again. The story is based on a real event about a group of conquistadors fresh from defeating and enslaving the Incas in Peru and their search for El Dorado - the fabled city of gold - in the Peruvian jungles of the Amazon. The opening scene of the Spanish conquistadors trudging down the mountain into the Amazon jungle through the clouds is deliberately long with an electronic musical score and it sets the tone and pace for the rest of the film. As they trudge through the mud down into the jungle you have feelings of foreboding, that the jungle is ready to devour them physically and metaphorically. The canon gets stuck, the horsemen get caught in the jungle vines, the river looks menacing. Its not long before the nobles are arguing amongst themselves, and power struggles erupt with the hunch backed Aguirre plotting and conspiring. The expedition starts to devour itself and descend into madness.

D33XSldDG2E

What is so good about the film is the intensity of it. Kinski, in particular, is electric as the morose, treacherous and violent nobleman who eventually leads the doomed expedition further in to the jungle and madness. The cinematography is breath-taking with the merciless jungle and the raging river becoming major characters in the unfolding tragedy. It has epic pretensions but the encroaching jungle makes the film close in on itself. The conspiracies and power struggles are shown at close quarters. It explores the relationships between the classes - between the noblemen, the soldiers and the slaves. As it is based on the only surviving account of the expedition by a priest, there is also an examination of the realtionship between the state and the church. It looks real because it is real. The hardships were actual hardships for the actors. They really are miserable! No CGI or special effects here. Reality filmed well can be just as stunning. Long takes, no flash bang editing here. It sucks you in by osmosis. It gets under the skin. The finale shows the rapidly-unravelling raft floating down the river with the few remaining survivors after the indian attacks and the camera swoops in and flys in circles around the stricken craft whilst Aguirre rants at the jungle, the river and the dead bodies that surround him. An incredible death spiral image. Wow. If you can overcome the German dialogue and the sub titles I urge you to watch this film.

Just imagine. Immediately before Aguirre, Wrath of God, was Fitzcarraldo, an equally esoteric and eccentric piece of quality cinema. It has many of the features of Aguirre, Wrath of God. Kinski is on acting duty again but playing a much different character - an eccentric Irshman called Fitzgerald who buys a plot of rubber plantation land in the inaccessible Peruvian jungle. Everyone thinks he’s mad because he has no way of getting the rubber out of the impenetrable jungle. This is a much more uplifting story of one man’s insistence that the impossible can be made possible (with a little help from your friends). The jungle and the river are once again major players but not so malevolent this time and beautifully filmed. There are long takes and deep focus shots of the steam boat sailing around the bends of the river at normal speed against the majestic backdrop of the jungle. There are long takes of the steam boat actually being mechanically hauled over a steep piece of cleared jungle  over to the next river. This is actually happening. You have to marvel at it. Herzog, however, manages to make it seem fantastical at the same time. And the operatic score perfectly compliments the film. It symbolises civilisation of the wilderness as we see the indigenous tribe buy into Fitzgerald’s dreams. And the music teeters between tragedy and triumph as they overcome the various obstacles put in their path. Not only does he manage to make his money from rubber but he also satisfies his passion for opera as he builds the first opera house in the jungle.

F53yUsgVuL0

Quite simply the images in this film, as in Aguirre, Wrath of God, burn into your skull. Once seen never forgotten. Iconic images you will not see the likes of elsewhere. Both films march to the beat of their own drums. They are multi-layered and complex but worth investing time in to stimulate your mind and your senses. In the current parlance, these are two films to see before you die.

£6.49 End Date: Tuesday Jul-14-2009 17:26:14 BST Buy It Now for only: £6.49 Buy it now | Add to watch list

£14.78 End Date: Monday Aug-03-2009 16:47:46 BST Buy It Now for only: £14.78 Buy it now | Add to watch list

£3.99 (0 Bid) End Date: Monday Jul-13-2009 21:50:38 BST Bid now | Add to watch list

£3.95 (0 Bid) End Date: Friday Jul-10-2009 19:21:38 BST Bid now | Add to watch list

£8.95 End Date: Sunday Aug-02-2009 17:27:01 BST Buy It Now for only: £8.95 Buy it now | Add to watch list

Many people have read the books by Thomas Harris that introduced the serial killer, Dr Hannibal Lecter, to an unsuspecting world. Who can forget Anthony Hopkin’s performance in Silence of the Lambs when that story was transferred to the silver screen.

However, his first appearance was several years earlier in a small but pivotal cameo role in the first adaptation of Red Dragon called Manhunter. It was directed by a little known director at the time who was famous for creating the US cop series Miami Vice - Michael Mann. Many years later, after the success of the Silence of the Lambs and Hannibal, a big budget remake of Red Dragon was made starring Edward Norton, Ralph Fiennes and Anthony Hopkins reprising his role as Dr Lecter.

But which was the better film?

Manhunter was a low key but stylish film on a relatively low budget. So no famous movie stars only good actors propelling along a spare and tense script. The audience is a key member of the film crew here as they are required to use their imagination throughout the film to fill in the gaps as you are told but not shown the grisly goings on. All the audience sees is the aftermath in all its gory detail. It is also a puzzle which engages the audience. How can they find the Tooth Fairy in time before he kills another innocent? The film is ground breaking as it introduces us to the techniques of forensic criminal investigation used by the FBI. I would go so far as to say that it is the forerunner of the CSI TV series. Heck, you’ve even got the actor who played Will Graham in Manhunter - William Petersen - as the head of the original CSI unit!

Manhunter is stylish too. Many film conventions are broken here. The scenes with Lecter are shown in his brilliant white prison cell. Glaring light and white backgrounds. Most monsters emerge from the dark. This one is shown in the light. Lecter himself is an educated, manipulative man who would not be out of place in a board room or a university. The architecture of the prison/ secure facility where Lecter is held is interesting again all white but labyrinthine. You see Graham trying to get out but seemingly going round and round. Is it a representation of Graham’s mind, is he going insane? There are lots of glossy Miami Vice-like touches in the beach house scenes as well.

But the key to this film is the script. It is maybe not the most faithful adaptation of the book out but concentrates on the key storyline to produce a gripping film. There is no scene that does not have a function, no dialogue that does not propel the story onward. A masterpiece of conciseness. The audience are willing participants in filling in the gaps. The technical forensic stuff is real and not presented for dummies. It is restless and sparks into life at the appropriate moments. The story works and the climaxes are satisfying.

So is it better than the big budget remake? My view is a resounding yes. Red Dragon boasts actors with a high pedigree and another performance by Anthony Hopkins as Lecter. But we tend to see in our mind the Lecter from the Silence of the Lambs. If you compare the performances by Hopkins and Brian Cox (Lecter in Manhunter) they are different but equally chilling in their own way. Cox is almost brash and arrogant and not very menacing until you see what he can do in the scene where he finds out Graham’s home address. Hopkins is charming and menacing but we know already what despicable things he can do from the previous films and this detracts a little from the menace. It’s almost like meeting an old friend again. We’re not frightened merely eager to see what he’s been up to! Red Dragon is possibly a film too far for Dr Hannibal Lecter.

For all its production values and good acting Red Dragon is a bit of a yawn. Red Dragon may be a a more faithful adaptation of the book but it’s too long and loses its tension several times. We are after all working in a different medium. We see the moment when Graham discovers Lecter as the serial killer and the reason why he left the FBI. The grisly scene is shown it all its technicolour glory as Graham is sliced up by Lecter but is it any scarier or better than the few terse references in Manhunter. In my view, less is more and the Red Dragon scene seems gratuitous.

STnWeHx41p4

In trying to spend more time looking at the Tooth Fairy’s character it drains the story of its lifeblood. Our monsters need to be unknown to make them scary. This also knocks the point of view out of whack. Which character is driving the film? Graham or the Tooth Fairy or Lecter? The script and story meander along looking for the directions to the end. For those of us who have seen Manhunter we know the story, we know the ending, we have the route map. We just shout at Red Dragon to get on with it.

At the end of the day I find Red Dragon a bit redundant. Why was it made anyway? Hollywood bosses trying to build a franchise from the Thomas Harris books? For those of you who have not seen Manhunter and or Red Dragon get them from your local DVD rental and check it out for yourself.

£6.46 End Date: Monday Aug-03-2009 18:30:35 BST Buy It Now for only: £6.46 Buy it now | Add to watch list

£13.01 End Date: Monday Aug-03-2009 16:50:56 BST Buy It Now for only: £13.01 Buy it now | Add to watch list

£10.79 End Date: Monday Aug-03-2009 16:45:02 BST Buy It Now for only: £10.79 Buy it now | Add to watch list

£9.87 End Date: Monday Aug-03-2009 16:43:05 BST Buy It Now for only: £9.87 Buy it now | Add to watch list

£13.01 End Date: Monday Aug-03-2009 16:32:17 BST Buy It Now for only: £13.01 Buy it now | Add to watch list

In a previous post, I did a brief survey of screen writing software and made some recommendations. Well, I have just come across a new piece of software that purports to be the complete pre-production package taking your work through story development, screen play, shooting schedules etc. Even more important - it’s free and comes in different flavours (Windows, Linux, Mac)

It’s called Celtx. You can download it from www.celtx.com. It looks very useful from the screenshots and features described on the site. Has anyone used it? What did you think? Was it helpful? I will be downloading it and giving it a test drive shortly but I just thought it would be good to get other feedback as well.

That’s it for now.

£17.39 End Date: Monday Aug-03-2009 22:41:28 BST Buy It Now for only: £17.39 Buy it now | Add to watch list

£13.49 End Date: Monday Aug-03-2009 19:22:52 BST Buy It Now for only: £13.49 Buy it now | Add to watch list

£9.80 End Date: Monday Aug-03-2009 16:50:02 BST Buy It Now for only: £9.80 Buy it now | Add to watch list

£11.30 End Date: Monday Aug-03-2009 16:10:59 BST Buy It Now for only: £11.30 Buy it now | Add to watch list

£7.61 End Date: Monday Aug-03-2009 1:17:32 BST Buy It Now for only: £7.61 Buy it now | Add to watch list

As you can see from the first part of this I am a fan of the old style epics which are usually historical stories with universal themes involving large scale conflict, and where no expense is spared, either on the costumes, settings or numbers of extras to fill the  . However, apart from Gladiator and possibly Troy in the recent past, there are fewer of these types of epic that are made any more. Braveheart (and possibly Dances With Wolves and my favourite, Last of The Mohicans) might also slip into the bottom half of the category.

That is not to say that epic films are not made but they now tend to inhabit different genres. The definition of epic has changed slightly because you can now see Science Fiction epics, Western epics, War epics etc. They are not confined to historical subjects or reality for that matter but they still rely on big stories with universal themes and more CGI effects than any normal film can handle.

Just think of the impact of Star Wars at the time of its release.The first major science fiction epic. You might argue with me that 2001 - A Space Odyssey was really the first space epic but I contend that it paved the way for Star Wars. Nothing had really been seen like this before. The special effects were eye-popping, the scale of the sets huge and the galactic gallivanting and action sequences better than the most advanced computer game at the time.

Like all true epics you need to see it on a wide screen to appreciate its epic qualities. Each episode got bigger and more CGI laden (not always for the better) and pushed the envelope in terms of CGI and what the audience could take in visually. The story of a band of renegades taking on an evil empire is a classic story dressed up in science fiction garb. Like all good stories it follows the Hero’s Journey structure described by Christopher Vogler. Weird and wonderful (and most importantly, memorable) characters also litter the Star Wars films and the energy and superb sound and editing make it an assault on the senses and a roller-coaster ride of action.

No less impressive is The Matrix trilogy although the epic concept, story and visualisation tend to rely more and more on CGI as the mind boggling narrative loses steam and coherence in the third episode. Not to say that the final battle against the machines isn’t exciting and adrenalin-pumping, no siree.

But the real daddy of them all has to be The Lord of The Rings trilogy. This fantasy adventure that brings the well loved Tolkien story to the silver screen has to be the biggest labour of love and the greatest triumph in recent years. Peter Jackson and the cast quite simply have created a series of believable and engrossing characters that interact with each other an imaginary world that soon become an alternative reality throughout the playing time of the films. The films are fantastic but adult in their visualisation. This is not child’s play. And here we have an example of where the CGI definitely enhances the story telling and is not there just to show off. The journey of the Hobbits through the weird and wonderful landscapes imagined by Tolkien provides a strong backbone of narrative against which the colourful characters and sub plots are introduced. Large scale epic story, action and visuals connected to individual emotion and drama in a seamless presentation to the viewer. Not a weak link in the trilogy and something to truly marvel at.

What is interesting is that the true spirit of the epic is still alive …. and living in China. For the past few years, if you want to see a cast of thousands then you need look no further than some of the historical Chinese films such as Hero and The Curse of the Golden Flower. The rich sensual qualities of the fabrics and colours and the large scale settings coupled with balletic action and fighting sequences clearly put these films into the epic category. They carry on the oriental epic tradition elegantly promoted by Kurosawa in Kagemusha and Ran. Choreography and organisation rather than CGI are the order of the day but the final product is no less stirring and spectacular.

2BfPgF4DF-Q

It will be interesting to see if the forthcoming Mongol, the story of Genghis Khan, furthers the epic tradition.

One of my great passions in movies is to watch epic films. You know the ones - grand scale, sweeping visuals and action and heroic stories. A good epic film needs the big screen to fit in the cast of thousands and the panoramic view of the action. There have been many epics made over the years (some good, some not so good) but the genre is still alive and well but mainly populated by CGI “casts of thousands”.

As a younger whipper snapper my early view of epics were that they were historical stories based on Greek or Roman tales and myths. I cannot tally up how many subtitled Italian “sword and sandal” epics I watched at the local cinema. Romulus and Remus, Helen of Troy, The Wooden Horse of Troy and many others. They were exciting, colourful, wide screen and action-laced. I can’t say, looking back, that any of them had any great merit but for a young lad of 12 years old they stirred the imagination.

But there were two that stood out during this period as worthy contenders for the best epic ever made. The first is Spartacus and I have mentioned this elsewhere in this blog. I can’t remember whether I blagged my way into the cinema as it was an adult certificate or whether my dad took me but anyway…It had all the trappings of a great epic film - wonderful story of one man against Rome, exquisite photography (you would expect that of Stanley Kubrick though), fine leading actor performance by Kirk Douglas (who also produced the film) and tremendous supporting cast filling in the gaps between the battle scenes. Ah, the battle scenes… Whenever I watch the final battle scene with the Roman legions marching I just marvel at it. It looks like a well-oiled machine but you can see every penny up there on the screen. A definite cast of thousands.

ANRjZ_4RZ5U

The second and perhaps underrated epic film is El Cid. An unusual subject for an epic at the time of its making produced by the maverick Samuel Bronston and directed by Anthony Mann. A Spanish nobleman unites warring kingdoms in medieval Spain to fight the invading Moors from Africa. The story was not well known but still remarkable for that. A complex story involving political intrigue and family jealousy and betrayal interwoven with grand scale conflict. Many reviewers over the years have said that it is the greatest epic film of all time as long as it keeps its mouth shut. Granted some of the dialogue is clunky and jars occasionally. But there is so much more to marvel at. I watched it on television again for the first time in many years the other day and I must say I was still wowed by it overall. The production design was breathtaking, sumptuous colours, designs and fabrics popping out of the screen. Incredible locations and interiors. I used to think that some of the acting was over the top but I now realise that the actors were fighting to be noticed in the midst of such a visual back drop. Nevertheless, with a strong lead performance from the recently-deceased Charlton Heston and excellent supporting cast it was bound to be a winner. The cream on top of the cake was the action. Robust, bloody and spectacular. The scale and grandeur were there to see. The sight of thousands of Moors marching along the sandy crescent towards Valencia was frightening and blood curdling to a young boy immersed in the story. And the ending is unforgettable with The Cid (already dead but strapped to his horse) leading out his men to meet the Moors in battle and riding away along the sand into the distance after the battle is won. If there is a more iconic scene in a film let me know.

I did watch Ben Hur around the same time but it did not have quite the same impact on me as these two films.

As I grew older two more epic films had an impact on me. They were both directed by the same man, Sergei Bondarchuk. The first was his Russian version of War and Peace by Lev Tolstoy. Now I should say at the start this is not my favourite by any means - it is long (I saw it originally it in two three and a half hour segments) and fairly boring in places unless you are fan of the book. But it sprung into life in the battle scenes. His depiction of the battle of Borodino was amazing and the final shot as the camera tracked back and upwards from just a couple of bodies to show literally thousands of bodies on the battlefield was just heart stopping. A similar device was used in Kurosawa’s Kagemusha as the extent of the carnage is shown and the rivers running red with blood. His photography of the cavalrymen riding into battle with their lances created a fantastic tension and during parts of the battle he freeze framed scenes to make them look like portraits that could be hung in an art gallery.

In the second film, Bondarchuk concentrated on his strengths and produced the rousing Waterloo. More battle action and memorable scenes playing out the events that lead to a very detailed and rousing climax. Again the cavalry scenes were brilliantly realised and the choreographed splendour of the infantry made for action on an epic scale. Aerial shots of the battle field show how difficult it must have been to coordinate the action and make it believable. Again, the film doesn’t get into my top three because there are moments in the film where the momentum of the story is lost but for dramatic and full on epic action in the battle scenes it is hard to beat it.

So little time, so many epics…….

Well, I did watch it again with my wife this time. It is a film that bears watching again and I appreciated much more the good points of the film. However, I still stand by my comments about the ending.

The beginning scenes give you all the clues to the film in a really cinematic way. The ambiguous opening shot of the country mansion pulls back to reveal a doll’s house. Nothing is really as it seems. The scenes repeated from different points of view. The typewriter clack on the soundtrack morphing into the music. Very much literary references. And one of the things I missed but my wife picked up on quickly - the relationship between Robbie and Cecilia. Nothing is said in the narrative but again the clues are there. Robbie, the lowly cook’s son has been financed in his education by the now dead head of the household and his mother’s assertion that Robbie was “nothing like his father” suggest that there has been a liaison in the past between the master and the cook that produced Robbie. So maybe there is more of the forbidden love element than I originally thought with Robbie and Cecilia being related. Incestuous goings on amongst the gentry - that wouldn’t do!

One element of the film that my wife and I both agreed could have been improved was the sound quality. As most of the dialogue was fast and of the Noel Coward variety, clear sound was essential but we kept missing key lines in the film and having to ask each other what did they just say.

I watched the final half hour carefully again and still feel duped. The director Joe Wright may retort that you were warned during the first half of the film that things were not as they seem. So, why were you not sceptical about the latter scenes in the hospital and the scene at Cecilia’s flat? My response would be that there were no obvious clues in these scenes as there had been in previous scenes. Deliberately so to make the ending that much more unexpected. I was interpreting it as straight forward narrative and genre. A sneaky trick.

The final confessional by the dying Briony I understood better her arguments but I still say that it was a weak gesture that would mean nothing to anyone except her. Atonement, to me, means acknowledging your mistakes, your sins, and trying your best to put them right. Her tragedy was that she could not put them right for Robbie and Cecilia in real life. But she could have confessed to Robbie’s mother. She could have done the same to her mother (although we are told that the episode had been swept under the carpet). But she didn’t and what she did was far little too late and comes across as self serving only. She could have lived with her conscience after confessing better but might have had to endure the wrath or anger of real people still alive. Instead she retreats into a fictional world of “what might have been” for what seems to have been the rest of her life. Maybe that was her penance for her dreadful act. Penance - now that would have been a better title.